Ciaprazi v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ciaprazi v. State

276 A.D.2d 816, 714 N.Y.S.2d 248, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10110

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 5, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 816 (Ciaprazi v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ciaprazi v. State, 276 A.D.2d 816, 714 N.Y.S.2d 248, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10110 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Peters, J.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Bell, J.), entered August 31, 1999, which denied claimant’s motion for assignment of an expert witness.

[817]*817Claimant, an inmate^ commenced this action seeking damages against the State for its alleged negligence in exposing him to tuberculosis while incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County. Claimant moved for an order assigning him an expert witness or directing payment of funds to retain an expert to assist in pursuing claimant’s cause of action. The Court of Claims denied claimant’s motion, prompting this appeal. We affirm.

As noted by the Court of Claims, claimant provides no statutory or case authority authorizing the payment of expert witness fees in civil cases brought by litigants. Rather, it has been held that even in cases involving in forma pauperis litigants, plaintiffs are responsible for bearing the cost of their litigation (see, Boring v Kozakiewicz, 833 F2d 468, 474, cert denied 485 US 991; see also, Pedraza v Jones, 71 F3d 194, 196; Malik v Lavalley, 994 F2d 90). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the order of the Court of Claims.

Mercure, J. P., Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Peters, J.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Bell, J.), entered August 31, 1999, which denied claimant’s motion for assignment of an expert witness.

[817]*817Claimant, an inmate^ commenced this action seeking damages against the State for its alleged negligence in exposing him to tuberculosis while incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County. Claimant moved for an order assigning him an expert witness or directing payment of funds to retain an expert to assist in pursuing claimant’s cause of action. The Court of Claims denied claimant’s motion, prompting this appeal. We affirm.

As noted by the Court of Claims, claimant provides no statutory or case authority authorizing the payment of expert witness fees in civil cases brought by litigants. Rather, it has been held that even in cases involving in forma pauperis litigants, plaintiffs are responsible for bearing the cost of their litigation (see, Boring v Kozakiewicz, 833 F2d 468, 474, cert denied 485 US 991; see also, Pedraza v Jones, 71 F3d 194, 196; Malik v Lavalley, 994 F2d 90). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the order of the Court of Claims.

Mercure, J. P., Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 816, 714 N.Y.S.2d 248, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ciaprazi-v-state-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack